In the 1961 case of Scholle v. Hare, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Michigan's apportionment scheme violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it diluted votes in more populous districts while amplifying those in less populated ones. The state constitution required each county to have at least one representative regardless of its population size, and additional representatives were allocated based on a formula favoring rural areas over urban ones. This resulted in significant disparities between populations represented by individual legislators - some representing as few as 5,000 residents and others up to a million or more. The court held that this system was unconstitutional because it failed to adhere to the principle of "one person, one vote." It emphasized that legislative representation must be based substantially on population and not geographical units like counties or political subdivisions.

In the dissenting opinion for Scholle v. Hare, Justice John Marshall Harlan II argued that the majority's decision to strike down Michigan's apportionment scheme was a significant overreach of judicial power. He contended that it was not within the Court’s authority to decide on matters related to political representation and district boundaries as these were inherently political issues best left to state legislatures or Congress. Furthermore, he believed there wasn't a clear constitutional standard for determining whether an apportionment scheme violated equal protection rights because population equality among districts is just one factor among many in ensuring fair representation. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that Michigan's system resulted in unconstitutional discrimination against voters in more populous counties.